When did she agree to endorse gay marriages? I can see her argument if she claims " I agreed to do my job and I also agreed to do my job when laws change. But I never agreed to do my job when it violates my religion. You are saying that I did so derivatively, but I disagree."

Why should everybody else be legally forced to accommodate, but not in her case?

If lot of other people get Reasonable Accommodations- even public officials, then why shouldn't she. I know some elected officials that get special accommodations so they can practice their religion at work, or not work so they can practice their religion. I know of laws that have been changed to accommodate .religious beliefs.

Some JW are clerks of the Court (not all officers of the Court are elected) In the US attorneys are officers of the Court.

Judges can do whatever they like. I have heard judges say: "The law ties my hands." and then do whatever they like anyway, erring deliberately. They can and will err when they like and the heck with you. Go around in circles and spend all your money in appeals.. They do not have to tell you they are doing so. But sometimes they will tell you straight out. You think you know so much? Go try a judge. "The Court erred. SO WHAT! The heck with you."

You do not have any Court exposure. Divorce maybe. If you did, when I said bunk, you would know.

She doesn't have to endorse gay marriages. She simply has to make sure paperwork is in order and file it for marriage as she agreed to.

I can see her argument if she claims " I agreed to do my job and I also agreed to do my job when laws change. But I never agreed to do my job when it violates my religion. You are saying that I did so derivatively, but I disagree."

Her argument is invalid. Laws change over time and as a deputy clerk for years, she would know that and be aware that laws would absolutely change during her time in office. Her oath said she agreed to uphold the laws, not uphold the laws except when she felt like it.

Why should everybody else be legally forced to accommodate, but not in her case?

If lot of other people get Reasonable Accommodations- even public officials, then why shouldn't she.

Because "reasonable accomodation" doesn't mean "don't have to do a core component of your job after you've sworn an oath to do so".

I know some elected officials that get special accommodations so they can practice their religion at work, or not work so they can practice their religion.

None of those are "not doing a core function of your job that you swore to do".

Some JW are clerks of the Court (not all officers of the Court are elected) In the US attorneys are officers of the Court.

So what?

Judges can do whatever they like. I have heard judges say: "The law ties my hands." and then do whatever they like anyway, erring deliberately.

Reality differs from your statements.

Sixty one federal judges have been impeached or investigated in the United States. Several were removed. That's not counting at all state and local judges. Also, judges had limited power and authority based on their position and region. They cannot "do whatever they want", no matter how many times or how much you think that to be true.

It simply is not reality.

You think you know so much? Go try a judge. "The Court erred. SO WHAT! The heck with you."

I do know so much, and your suggestion has exactly nothing to do with your incorrect claim and lack of knowledge.

Her oath said she agreed to uphold the laws, not uphold the laws except when she felt like it.

She is not upholding laws when she feels like it.

Because "reasonable accomodation" doesn't mean "don't have to do a core component of your job after you've sworn an oath to do so".

She never swore to endorse gay marriages as a core component of her job..

So what?

Exactly my point

Reality differs from your statements.

It does not. The reality is that the Court has case law to support whatever decision it likes. Obviously, a judge cannot commit a crime or impeachable conduct, but besides that, judges are very powerful and within the ambit of their power in their jurisdiction they have the power to decide what the Court deems just and proper. In other words, like. or sometimes bunk.

Sixty one federal judges have been impeached or investigated in the United States. Several were removed. That's not counting at all state and local judges.

So what. Tell that to the judge when he tells you that it is his Court room.

Also, judges had limited power and authority based on their position and region.

Subject matter.

They cannot "do whatever they want", no matter how many times or how much you think that to be true.

Depends on what I mean. I said "like" not want.

I do know so much,

If you are an attorney, I believe you. If not, I laugh at you.

I do not want to argue for the sake of winning. I do not know all of the facts about her case. I am not a supporter of her either. Or any public official using religion as an excuse not to do their job. . You have posted a lot of your assertions but in all objectivity, you have not invalidated her claim.

Fisherperson, you not being sure about the validity of her argument is irrelevant. She is not upholding the law or her oath. That is fact. She IS only doing her job when she feels like it. You not being sure, remaining uninformed, trying to muddy the waters have nothing to do with the facts.

The fact is she swore to uphold the law. Another fact is that she is not. Yet another fact is that judges cannot do whatever they want. One more fact is that you are uninformed and wrong in every single thing you have said. A final fact is that she in no way has to endorse a marriage to sign it, despite your attempt to try to redefine words to suits your lack of knowledge.

As far as knowing whether or not her claim is invalid, she has lost every challenge and no more are left. She lost, her claim is invalid. Every single person who actually understands the issues grasped that. That you didn't, freely admit that you are uninformed on the matter and have made no attempt to bother to learn the facts makes your laughing little more than personification of the phrase "ignorance is bliss". And trust me, you were never arguing to win. Heck, you don't even have an argument. You've nothing but being uninformed and happy about that.